Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Breaking news: Ethiopian Airlines flight has crashed on way to Nairobi

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Originally Posted by NY Times

    Former Max engineers, including one who worked on the sensors, said adding a third [AoA] sensor to the Max was a nonstarter. Previous 737s, they said, had used two and managers wanted to limit changes.

    “They wanted to A, save money and B, to minimize the certification and flight-test costs,” said Mike Renzelmann, an engineer who worked on the Max’s flight controls. “Any changes are going to require recertification."
    Smoking gun.
    There is nothing intrinsically wrong with A, saving money and B, minimizing the certification and flight-test costs.

    There is not too much wrong, either, with not adding a 3rd sensor and keeping 2 sensors like in the previous generations of the 737.

    But there is a lot wrong on having 2 sensors and then using only 1 of them for a system where, if this single sensor malfunctioned for whatever reason, can simultaneously trigger IAS disagree, alt disagree, FD disagree, false stickshaker and nose-down runaway trim. For God's sake, you don't need a PhD in aeronautical engineering to note that this is wrong. I don't understand the logic behind not using the 2 sensors already installed in the airplane. Was the MCAS code going to be more expensive with inputs from 2 sensors? Was the testing and certification going to be more expensive? I think not, not in any meaningful way at least. And if there was any slight difference, here goes the saying:

    Those who think that safety is expensive should try an accident.

    Leave a comment:


  • TeeVee
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Smoking gun.
    and that is exactly why they need to be put in jail for ridiculously long periods of time, like, life. all of boeing's money cannot pay for the lives lost to criminally reckless, profit driven, despicably obedient to wall street greed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by NY Times
    Former Max engineers, including one who worked on the sensors, said adding a third [AoA] sensor to the Max was a nonstarter. Previous 737s, they said, had used two and managers wanted to limit changes.

    “They wanted to A, save money and B, to minimize the certification and flight-test costs,” said Mike Renzelmann, an engineer who worked on the Max’s flight controls. “Any changes are going to require recertification."
    Smoking gun.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Ram
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    So this "muppet" is the CEO of Boyd Group International, who is a self-professed "well known as an expert in futurist aviation issues".

    This is March 13th and he's confident that we will have the MAX back in the air in two weeks. Because the software fix is only for the 'brown people' from 'sh*thole nations' with low hours who "really shouldn't be in the cockpit"?

    And, as of April 8th, is anybody still considering him a "well known as an expert in futurist aviation issues"?

    Cuz he don't know jack about this one.
    There were a lot of them. Some were even making up new words"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbOdm7u8mfU

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Ram
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/878631...struck-object/. Okay Evan, do we sue the bird, the foreign object or is this on Boeing too?
    This isn't news. I wouldn't say the bird/foreign object "sent the plane crashing" (This is The Sun after all). The bird/foreign object is not guilty for the total lack of redundancy, the reliance on one AoA vane, the incomplete instructions/insufficient procedures, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    But you're not into gliding, yourself?
    I am a commercial rated glider pilot as well. Still soar as often as I can. Soloed in a sailplane on my 14th birthday

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    No thanks, this site and flying my 73 year old Cub is as much aviation as I want to do anymore. That and tow a few sailplanes.
    But you're not into gliding, yourself?

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Wrong
    Words matter, Evan.

    "Would have saved" (May or may not be an official contributing factor)

    You saying wrong...is wrong.

    I also bet that those pilots started in single engine aircraft.

    The question is why did they forget that relentless pull ups are bad...that checking the airspeed during approach is critical?

    I see your inability to mentally process and conceive such things as possible insight into how they were thinking.

    Do I KNOW what they were thinking, no, but I see your general answer is "They needed more type-specific training"...so they don't pull up relentlessly in a 737-Min-Lav-826A (with leather yoke and carbon fiber arm rests, as opposed to the 825A)...Ok...fine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/878631...struck-object/. Okay Evan, do we sue the bird, the foreign object or is this on Boeing too?
    It is on Boeing too, of course!!!

    A failure of this single sensor triggers stick-shaker, IAS disagree, alt disagree, FD disagree, and nose-down trim runaway that, if the trim is disconnected as per procedure, may become impossible hard to move y hand and impossibly hard to keep the nose up with elevator.

    Bird strike and FOD in general is reality in aviation an airplane design should be reasonable robust to it. This design is neither robust nor reasonable.

    Could the pilots have done better? Hell, yes!!! But should Boeing have done better? Double hell yes!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    It doesn't change the fact that:

    Basic 172 training (relentless pull ups are bad) would have saved Air France
    Advanced 172 training Pitch + Power = performance) would have saved Air France
    Basic 172 training (always watch airspeed) would have saved Asiana
    Basic 172 training (relentless pull ups are bad) would have saved 2, 3, 4, 5...(Additional Gabriel citations)
    Basic 172 training (a large number of other basic things) would have saved a large number of airliners with crews with intensive procedural training- who for some reason, ignored basic, scientific things that applied to their airliners.
    Wrong (human factors).
    Wrong (stealth factors).
    Wrong (type-specific knowledge/cockpit culture).
    Wrong (human factors/stealth factors).
    Wrong (wrong).

    I bet you a German pilsner in a gold-rimmed glass that every one of these pilots learned the basics on a single engine carbo-prop without automation before they ever got into the messes that did them in.

    Leave a comment:


  • SmoothAir
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Oh, sorry, you said right seat! I think he makes a good point. I think he knows what he's talking about.

    But left seat, at least a few thousand hours please.
    absolutely agreed ! - he makes extremely valid points and is spot on regarding the dinosaurs with god complexes that he succinctly eludes to.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    Why Boeing decided to go with a single sensor input is beyond me let alone so unlike them.
    You should read the Dutch final report for Turkish 1951. It's not really so unlike Boeing to do this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    The First Officer on the Ethiopian aircraft has been reported as having 350 hours Total Time.
    Oh, sorry, you said right seat! I think he makes a good point. I think he knows what he's talking about. Assuming the flight schools are held to a high standard.

    But left seat, at least a few thousand hours please.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Did he say that? I thought he said 3500 TT. I definitely agree with you if he said 350.

    BTW: the epaulettes are part of his YouTube brand. I think he making some good second income here. He's got merch! Maybe you should consider this....
    No thanks, this site and flying my 73 year old Cub is as much aviation as I want to do anymore. That and tow a few sailplanes.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Why Boeing decided to go with a single sensor input is beyond me let alone so unlike them.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X